About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
to return to clinton era levels. obama's nemesis as he often told us are millionaires and billionaires. so why not urge that the higher tax rates be applied only to those with incomes of $1 million and not the couples earning more than $250,000. now, i'm talking pure politics, not equity in this case. can they hang their hat on the fact, okay, you're against millionaires, we'll take back their cut for the millionaires? below that they have to get the deal. >> the problem with this is chuck schumer and other senate democrats tried to offer this to republicans last time. remember the last time we did this they rejected it. >> it works for them now. they can say all we want is the schumer deal. >> right now they don't have the leverage to get the schumer deal. they rejected the schumer deal. they don't have the leverage to get it. >> here we disagree. i think they may have a case. if the bogey man is the millionaire -- >> i think that's where it's going to end up. i think that's the flektability in the negotiations at the end is over to whom the higher rates apply. >> but they don't raise tha
bowles idea. they summarized the testimony that the bill clinton chief of staff last year gave about what he thought might kind of be a workable budget deal way back then. because bowles is a democrat, the republicans thought they he could try to pretend that agreeing with a single democrat means that they are actually willing to compromise big time even though erskine bowles is a very easy democrat to negotiate with, unlike the actual elected democrats in washington. in other words, erskine bowles is willing to compromise on things or was willing to compromise on things that the democrats are not willing to co comp pro mice on. which means that it's utterly meaningless on your way to try to get a deal with the president of the united states. erskine bowles' proposal included a $600 billion cut in medicare spending which he achieved by raising the medicare eligibility age. so republicans just proposed raising the eligibility age for medicare, a proposal that polls show is supported by a full 30% of the american people and rejected by only 67% of them. white house communications director d
forgets that president clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and created 22 million jobs. president bush cut taxes on the wealthy and created 1 million jobs. so his economic expertise is a little behind here. but the truth of the matter is, everybody voted in this election, the president said he would raise taxes on people earning over $250,000. that's what he's going to do. that's what's going to happen. he has the authority of an election behind him. running for office is a difficult thing to do, and the people that win the elections have a lot more moral authority than in a democracy than people who talk about elections. >> ryan, that does seem to be the point. republicans may not like it, but that wasn't what this election said american people want. the majority of them. >> i think it's certainly true you have a large number of americans, 60%, according to a "washington post" abc news poll who favor raising taxes on folks earning more than $250,000 a year. but there are a couple other things to keep in mind, as well. president obama often talks about returning to clinton era tax rates.
the federal budget deficit. he knows something about something. he was around when clinton -- remember that economy? okay. he said i wish president obama and the democrats would explain to the nation the federal budget deficit isn't the major problem and deficit reduction shouldn't be the major goal. problem is lack of good jobs and the goal must to be revive both. deficit reduction leads us away from jobs and growth. the reason the fiscal cliff is dangerous is because it's too much deficit reduction too quickly that would suck demand out of the economy. more jobs and growth will help the deficit. recall the '90s when the clinton administration balanced the budget because of faster job growth than anybody expected bringing in more tax revenues than anyone had forecast. europe offers the same lesson in reverse. thank you. as jim says, every time we talk about this, they keep taking the wrong -- lindsey graham said we're going to be greece. yeah, if we do what you want! the best way to generate jobs and growth is
of to clinton era tax rates and the reagan tax rates -- why don't we just go back to the old way of doing things -- >> stephanie: exactly. >> caller: because the rich -- we had billionaires with all of those taxes -- >> stephanie: that's right. absolutely. charlie cristenson said that this morning. the fact that there is all this hysteria over oh no we might have to go to the low 30s percent range. [ screaming ] [♪ "world news tonight" theme ♪] >> stephanie: all right. chris there is a lot of discussion tab who is flabbergasting who? >> yeah. >> stephanie: republicans are working to quiet rumblings, and may have a newly reported doomsday plan. give a little keep a lot. avoid blame for the fiscal cliff. good luck. the bill would go to the floor, the republicans would vote present, allowing democratic votes to carry it to passage, the bill would be send to the white house and then put into law. obama has been unequivocal over the fact that the top earners tax rate must return to the clinton era. he can introduce a tax plan that will accomplish all of his revenue
into effect? why don't we say okay you guys don't want to make a deal fine. we'll go back to the clinton era, which will happen at the beginning of the year. >> stephanie: yeah. >> caller: and i mean also other people in the lower-income brackets will have to pay more, but i think we're willing to do that. >> stephanie: i don't think it's a preferable thing to go off of the cliff, but the more and more you see republicans have not changed one bit from their obstructionist ways i think, yeah, maybe. >> caller: it doesn't mean that starting january, the world will come to an end. >> caller: yeah, it's gradual. >> caller: and if you ask the people -- fortunately i live in texas, so the previous president i didn't -- i agree with a lot of times, but i will just say that he never asked us to sacrifice anything. he told us to go shopping. >> stephanie: yeah. >> caller: that is -- it's crazy. >> stephanie: exactly, unless you cut a [ inaudible ] for that last pair of [ mumbling ] shoes. >> stephanie: i should have picked an easier to pronounce shoe. >> keds. [ laughter ] >> steph
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)